On Mon, Sep 8, 2008 at 2:01 PM, Gary <gary@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Mark wrote: > >> Um, no, maybe it's one of those "ugly hacks", but viewing just the >> headers is possible with POP3. Also, telneting to pine gives the >> equivalent functionality *without* any hacks. >> > > Perhaps with some mail clients but it's not part of the RFC. IMAP, on > the other hand, was designed with resource limitations in mind. The crux of the matter is in specifically *what* resources are in question. IMAP may have an initial savings in network bandwidth (which is debatable), but ultimately uses much more in the way of every other type of computing resource on the server side, and the client side is basically irrelevant because the client can be written with the specific device in mind, and almost always *is* for devices with limited resources. > It sounds like the majority of your experience with IMAP is as an end user. You're absolutely correct there. > If you were a sysadmin of a mail server, for example, you might > reconsider your position. I don't really understand that. POP3 may require more network bandwidth in some circumstances, but requires far less in the way of all other server resources (processing, storage, etc.). Sounds like a wash to me. > I'm not trying to argue rather than suggest > that there are many sides to an issue and it's unfortunate that you've > not had a positive experience with a protocol due to some issues that > probably could have been resolved if you worked it through with your > mail server admin and/or the client developers. Again, we don't all have > the time for such things but if you want a positive experience with a > slightly buggy product, please voice your opinion constructively and > your efforts will help not only you but the rest of the user base. Again, from the research I've been doing since this thread started, the difference is less in the protocol than in the implementation. POP3 can be set up to work much like IMAP if desired, and IMAP can be set up to work like POP3. It's the server and client software that works differently. The bottom line in my case is that in order for IMAP to work for _me_, I would have to set it up to work like POP3, so what's the point? It had nothing to do with "issues" or bugs or anything like that. I think I need to emphasize that there's a big difference between a "protocol" and "server software". The problem for me is not the protocol, but the philosophy and design criteria of those developing IMAP server applications. Their goals are very different from mine. That's fine! Just don't tell me that POP3 is obsolete or any less valuable... > > On that note, I love where Diablo's going. No more flashing! > > -Gary > That will be wonderful, once they solve the problems that are keeping me from flashing Diablo in the first place. :-/ For now, I'm happy with Chinook. If I were just buying my device now and starting from a clean slate anyway, I would immediately flash Diablo (as I upgraded to Chinook when I first got my tablet). However, I've got far too much time and data invested in my current setup to contemplate losing much of it due to problems and incompatibilities and missing apps with Diablo. Yes, I'm bright enough to have all my data saved to SD rather than internal memory, but if the same apps aren't there to properly interpret that data, I may as well have lost it. Even if every app could be instantly put back in place, changing all the settings would still be daunting. My last reflash *should* have been a piece of cake, but I never could get the restore to work properly and had to reinstall everything and do all the setup from scratch. That would only be worse now, so until I know for a fact that every app I need is available and works properly in Diablo, it's a no-go. Mark _______________________________________________ maemo-users mailing list maemo-users@xxxxxxxxx https://lists.maemo.org/mailman/listinfo/maemo-users
